Dismissed

Arbaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/13282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge heard anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving assault causing serious injuries. The court noted medical reports showing bone fractures and held it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail, granting order to be a general dissent.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Arbaz Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13282 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arbaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chhavi Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0797 of 2021, under Section 147, 323, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit.

¶7

As per prosecution case, informant's husband had an altercation with an auto-rickshaw driver namely, Noor Miyan and Munna on 25.11.2021; after sometime, Noor Miyan and Munna came armed with an iron rod and iron pipes along with 6 to 7 companions, and attacked the husband of the informant in merciless manner causing him serious injuries; they left the place thinking that her husband has died; her husband was referred for higher medical assistance because of serious medical condition; the name of present applicant came into light during investigation.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and has been implicated in this case for ulterior motives; he is not named in the FIR and his name came to light by the statements of the witnesses at belated stage of investigation; there are general allegations against all of them; he is a poor person; it is also argued that Noor Miyan, a person named in the FIR has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of the Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14298 of 2022 vide order dated 07.04.2022; the case of the applicant stands on better footing, therefore, he also deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the learned AGA for the State. Following facts and arguments have been

¶10

placed before me in this connection:-

¶11

(i) that the only injured clearly named the present applicant as one of the assailant, who attacked him with iron rods;

¶12

(ii) that the other witness also named the present applicant as having attacked the victim causing him injuries;

¶13

(iii) that the medical report shows that the injured suffered multiple fractures on his head. The NCCT-Brain report shows following injuries:(a) Fracture left mastoid with blood in left middle ear cavity and external auditory canal.

¶14

(b) Hairline fracture in right temporal bone anteriorly.

¶15

(c) Fracture right zygomatic arch.

¶16

(d) Thin SDH (03 mm thickness) seen in right anterior temporal region.

¶17

(e) Small amont of air in B/L temporal cranial cavity---Pneumocranium.

¶18

It is also argued that nature of accusations and the role of the present applicant is such that he is not entitled for protection of anticipatory bail. Further it is forcefully contended that injuries sustained were quite serious in nature and could have proved fatal. The applicant attacked in well planned manner as is quite evident from the FIR itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that his case stood on better footing. There is no theory or material to suggest that his name was dragged in this case for some oblique motive or in a malicious manner

¶19

It may be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in my view cannot be utilized in a routine manner as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶22

The observation made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case by the courts below.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arbaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.